Scriptural support for private interpretation of Scripture?

[Mathetes007]

fcfahs:

That is, if we find a word, or phrase, or construct that is symbolic, prophetic, unclear, we must then search elsewhere in the bible (and only the bible) to find out what it means - we must not impose OUR OWN meaning or interpretation on it.

Frank,

It may be going to far, at least when this passage is concerned (2 Peter 1:20-21), to state that we must only use the Bible without recourse to any external sources to find its meaning. Scholars know that such is not the case. In order to provide us with an English version of Scriptures, outside sources are consulted to determine meanings. At certain points, because some words or phrases are only used once in the corpus of Scripture, scholars depend on outside sources to determine meanings of phrases and words. You may have noticed that sometimes Bible translators use phrases such as “Hebrew obscure” (RSV-CE 1 Kings 14:14) or “Aramaic adds a word of uncertain meaning” (RSV-CE Ezra 7:12) or “One Greek word is of uncertain meaning and is not translated” (RSV-CE Mark 7:3). Scholars refer to meanings contained in non-inspired documents that were written at the time of the Scripture in question.

More importantly, 2 Peter 1:20-21 may be addressing two sources of revelation (i.e. Scripture and Tradition). If this is the case, then both sources must be used in conjunction. Let’s review the text again:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In order for us to understand Scripture properly, we must have a proper view of revelation. That is why Peter prefaces this teaching with “first of all you must understand this.” If we do not understand this, then our interpretation of Scripture will be off. Later in the epistle, Peter mentions that those who are not taught (“untaught or unlearned”) prior to coming to Scripture will “twist” its meaning (2 Peter 3:16). Then he urges us to “grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:17).

Peter informs us of two sources of revelation:

1. Scripture (which is not a matter of private interpretation)
2. Oral revelation (which is also from the Holy Spirit “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke”)

Note: This passage is not limiting this only to “prophecy” (future predictions). The Scripture at times refers to itself as the “oracles of God” with the view of the entire Bible not just the sections that contain prophecy (Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12).

Therefore, we do have an obligation to understand Scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit’s oral revelation as well.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

If our one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church submits to the authority of the Bible, what does that say to you, me any other Catholics? To me it says we also must submit to it. Frank

So, are you saying that you submit to the Holy Bible’s authority because our Catholic Church does, and not because the Holy Bible tells us to?

If this is the case, do you accept our Church’s authority when she teaches us that the woman in Rev 12 represents the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God?

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Hi johannine,
I’m not sure if this is precisely what you are looking for, but perhaps this fits in with your query.

2Tim:3:15-17

15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:http://www.scriptours.com/images/spacer.gif
17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Peace,

 

[scylla]

Hello Nun,

As a Catholic I believe fully in this passage of scripture which indicates that all scripture is useful, but nowhere does it say sufficient. That way, a man of god can correct and instruct others as they were called to do.
Many people interpret even this scripture to push the Sola Scriptura agenda. It is interesting that most people who push the private interpretation of scripture don’t notice that if this scripture was pushing for all Scripture to be used as a rule of faith, it would have to be used by people sent by the Church. Timothy was sent by Paul, who gave Timothy authority.
Anybody pressing the Sola Scriptura agenda would be contradicting that fact and giving themselves the authority instead of being called to it. They are essentially starting their own Church, (being a their own Christ) and then sending out their own pastors.

 

[Terry_Collins]

Certainly reading of the Bible is recommended and worthwhile and there are many truths that are easy to understand if one is not predesposed to deny something. It is also true that when interpreting scripture an infallible guide is necessary as there are always those who may emphasis one sense of scripture over another. For example the early Church of Antioch focused more so on the literal sense, and there arose the heresy of Arius. Likewise the early Church at Alexandria focused more on the spiritual sense and there arose the heresy of Gnosticism. Fortunately Holy Mother Church recognized these heresies and got rid of them. For sound interpretation there must be a balance as well as interpreting scripture as a ‘whole’ and not as one epistles or one Gospel.

Paul was a contemplative and wrote on a deeper plane than some of our other authors thus his teachings are hard to understand; for example the different “laws” that are used in the book of Romans. If one is not careful they will lump them together and thus get a completely false understanding of what Paul is telling us.

When studying Scripture we must at all times avoid doing violence to the text, which is hard to do at times due to certain bias.

 

[fcfahs]

Mathetes007:

Frank,

It may be going to far, at least when this passage is concerned (2 Peter 1:20-21), to state that we must only use the Bible without recourse to any external sources to find its meaning. Scholars know that such is not the case. In order to provide us with an English version of Scriptures, outside sources are consulted to determine meanings**…**

Hi Mathetes,

You raise some very valid and important points. I’m aware of the fact (albeit only from reading
other authoritative posts) that there are some hard-to-translate words and phrases in the Bible
that occur only once therin, and thus cannot be understood simply from their usage elsewhere
in the Bible. However, although I’ve not yet seen any definitive statement of exactly how many
such problematical words and/or phrases exist, I am inclined to think that there are probably
very few of them. In faith, I also have to believe that God wouldn’t have allowed His inspired
Scripture writers to come forth with and employ in a writing any single word or phrase, which
if not understood might seriously compromise a reader’s understanding of the overall message
God intended to convey with that writing…

Also, with regard to my belief that the Bible (Scripture) provides enough reiteration of God’s
Word in different literary styles and writer presentations to allow (through cross-referencing)
for an understanding of everything in the Bible which can be understood with our finite minds,
through diligent study, prayer, and guidence of the Holy spirit, I would like to know exactlly
which unwritten Sacred teachings of the first and prior centuries (teachings deemed requisit
for understanding Scripture) made their way, devoid of adulteration and still unwritten, into
the second and later centuries and ultimately into the “hands” of our contemporary Church
theologians, such that only our Church theologians are qualified to interpret the already well
translated, well prefaced, and well footnoted Bibles of today.

Indeed, it would really be affirming to find somewhere in the writtings of our earliest Church
Fathers a statement on Church doctrine that begins something like “Although not written in
Scripture, we personally know from talking to people who have either heard themselves or
have talked with others who have heard the oral teachings of Peter (or Paul or Timothy) …”

Thanks for your great (name removed by moderator)ut.

Frank

 

[fcfahs]

Hi Mark,

As I reply to your questions of me, I cannot help asking myself what they have to do with this
thread’s opening subject (Scriptural support for private interpretation of Scripture?) …None the
less, I still consider your questions worthy of some reply** …

**

MarkAnthonyCozy:

So, are you saying that you submit to the Holy Bible’s authority because our Catholic Church does, and not because the Holy Bible tells us to?

No! What I’m saying is that the Bible (Scripture) itself attests to its infalibility and authority, in
passages like those cited in my earlier post (#20). And, if for any reason we doubt the Bible’s
credibility, we can ( and must ) rely on the infalible word of our Catholic church, the best and
only adequate proof that the Bible was written under the inspiration of God. Specifically, the
Council of Trent, in April of 1546, declared that God is the author of both the Old and New
Testament." And, on April 8th, 1870, the Vatican Council stated that the books of the Bible,
“having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have God fortheir author, and as
such were handed down to the church herself.” And, Pope Pius XII repeated these words of
the Vatican, during 1943, in his Encyclical Letter on the promotion of Biblical studies.

MarkAnthonyCozy:

If this is the case, do you accept our Church’s authority when she teaches us that the woman in Rev 12 represents the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God?

According to the footnotes in my 1951 standard English Catholic Douay Bible, “the woman
[in Revelation.12] is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The
prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory
clothe her; the moon beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she
must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the
Blessed Virgin.”

Although the footnotes in my more recent NAB do not mention that the woman is not the
Blessed Virgin Mary or that the Church has merely accommodated this verse to apply to her,
they do affirm the fact that the woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images
taken from Gen. 37:9-10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and New Testaments. That is,
Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (5) and then became the new Israel, the Church, which
suffers persecution by the dragon (6:13-17) (c.f. Is. 50:1, Is.66:7, Jer 50:12).

Frank

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

Indeed, it would really be affirming to find somewhere in the writtings of our earliest Church Fathers a statement on Church doctrine that begins something like “Although not written in Scripture, we personally know from talking to people who have either heard themselves or have talked with others who have heard the oral teachings of Peter (or Paul or Timothy) …”

St.Saint Basil brother of St Gregory, of whom both grandmothers were martyrs wrote this around 375 AD:

“Who has taught us in writing to make the sign of the cross over those who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?” “Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the revelation of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? No, it’s well known that we are not content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words because they are important to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.”

“What’s more, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Isn’t our authority the silent and mystical tradition? By what written word is the annointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of washing three times in baptism? And what about the other customs of baptism? From what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels?”

“Doesn’t this come from that private and secret teaching that our fathers guarded in silence, out of reach of nosy meddling and curious investigation? They learned their lesson well: The awesome dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded around in written documents.”

There is no smoking gun for a reason.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

fcfahs:

According to the footnotes in my 1951 standard English Catholic Douay Bible, "the *woman *[in Revelation.12] is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her. The prophecy pictures the Church of the Old and New Covenants. The beams of the divine glory clothe her; the moon beneath her feet; she is crowned with a crown of twelve stars, and she must bring forth Christ to the world. By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin."Frank

Frank,

Thanks for bearing with my many questions. I have heard several teachings, some Catholic and some not, pertaining to Mary and Rev 12. I’m trying to find out where you are coming from along with trying to discern what is private interpretaion and what is not.

My Douay-Rheims-Challoner states that the woman is the “church of God” and could also “be applied to our blessed Lady”

What I find most interesting is when studying the traditions of the Church one must see the woman “clothed with the sun” as the Virgin Mary. If we don’t, then many of our traditions lose their meaning.

Does this mean that Catholics must resort to some private interpretation of Scripture in order to fully participate in some of our traditions?

Upon further study it appears that the Church purposely leaves many traditions on Mary open to interpretation.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

johannine:

I am familiar with some of the Bible verses that are used to try to defend “sola scriptura,” but I have never heard of any Bible verses used to try to defend private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Are there any that have been used for this purpose?

Clement of Alexandria
Stromata
Book 7, Ch. 16

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures.

That’s not completely on topic, I know, but it’s one of many things that Mr. Clement had to say.

 

[Genesis315]

I hope I don’t repeat anything, but isn’t sola scriptura and private interpretation essentially a tradition? I mean the only way one would know the Bible is the sole rule of Faith is if someone told you so. If you lived in a cave or something and then stumbled upon a Bible and started reading, there’s no way you would know that it is the sole rule of faith. I mean, you wouldn’t even know the Bible was the authentic inspired word of God without tradition to confirm it.

 

[Mathetes007]

fcfahs:

Hi Mathetes,

You raise some very valid and important points. . .Also, with regard to my belief that the Bible (Scripture) provides enough reiteration of God’s
Word in different literary styles and writer presentations to allow (through cross-referencing)
for an understanding of everything in the Bible which can be understood with our finite minds,
through diligent study, prayer, and guidence of the Holy spirit, I would like to know exactlly
which unwritten Sacred teachings of the first and prior centuries (teachings deemed requisit
for understanding Scripture) made their way, devoid of adulteration and still unwritten, into
the second and later centuries and ultimately into the “hands” of our contemporary Church
theologians, such that only our Church theologians are qualified to interpret the already well
translated, well prefaced, and well footnoted Bibles of today.

Indeed, it would really be affirming to find somewhere in the writtings of our earliest Church
Fathers a statement on Church doctrine that begins something like “Although not written in
Scripture, we personally know from talking to people who have either heard themselves or
have talked with others who have heard the oral teachings of Peter (or Paul or Timothy) …”

Hi Frank. I’m glad you see value in the points I addressed in my prior posts. However, you have chosen to interact with only one. At any rate the answer you pose is found in your very question. As has been pointed out time and time again across this forum, the Scriptures do not provide a divine table of contents. No matter how much cross-referencing you do you will not be able to come up with the canon of Scripture using this method. It was an outside authority (the Church) that recognized the canon infallibly through the early witnesses (Church Fathers).

Peace.

 

[fcfahs]

Mathetes007:

Hi Frank. I’m glad you see value in the points I addressed in my prior posts. However, you have chosen to interact with only one. At any rate the answer you pose is found in your very question. As has been pointed out time and time again across this forum, the Scriptures do not provide a divine table of contents. No matter how much cross-referencing you do you will not be able to come up with the canon of Scripture using this method. It was an outside authority (the Church) that recognized the canon infallibly through the early witnesses (Church Fathers).

Hi again Mathetes,

Please understand my focus here: I am not addressing the formidable problem of “coming up
with the canon of Scripture” - the task of deciding which manuscripts, in the myriad of ancient
religious writings, are collectively representative of the True Word of God. … As you point out,
“the Scriptures do not provide a divine table of contents” and I might add to your observation
that there certainly were no footnotes in the original Scriptures, to tell Scholars which writings
were related to each other or conveyed a simillar message. Therefore, I’m sure that Tradition
and reference to outside resources, such as non-inspired writings, played an important part in
formulating the canon of Scripture, not to mention translating the original works. But that job
is done! And we can move on from there, with the Church’s infallible assurance that what we
have in today’s Bible is divinely inspired Truth - the unadulterated Word of God.

As for my comment about comparing Scripture with Scripture, as the only means of coming
to grips with the Bible’s truth, I was mearly emphasizing that the Bible is isn’t organized such
that all information on a given subject falls within one chapter or one book. The whole Bible
must concur before we can truly call a theological concept “truth.”

As for the warning of “No private interpretation” in 2 Peter 1:20-21, we know the Word of
God and the understanding of it is revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:6-16), and
any personal understanding or interpretation of it must agree in all points with the Bible, or
spring without conflict from its principles (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) - otherwise an idea is nothing
more than an opinion and apt to be a dangerous one. And because of this, I adamantly feel
that the popular notion of the woman in Revelation 12 being the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a
clear case of of private interpretation. Why? Because as the footnotes my Standard English
Duoay Bible concur, “the woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars are images
taken from Gen. 37:9-10, symbolizing God’s people in the Old and New Testaments, with
Israel of old giving birth to the Messiah and then becoming me the new Israel, the Church,
which suffers persecution by the dragon (6:13-17) (c.f. Is. 50:1, Is.66:7, Jer 50:12). This
woman is NOT The Blessed Virgin Mary, because the details of the prophecy do not fit
her. It is only by accommodation that the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.”

To make such a subjective interpretation is like reading a computer news headline that says
"Macintosh, who has generated 12 awesome computer lines and has the industry beneath
its feet, now gives birth to a new operating system that will surely crush the competion; and
then interpreting this headline to be talking about Steve Jobs (top engineer at Macintosh),
because he is actually the guy who single handedly designed and coded (gave birth to) the
new operating system, referred to in the headline. Such an interpretation, however, is very
clearly erroneous, because the details of the headline do not completely fit Steve Jobs, or
any single engineer - they only completely fit his company, Macintosh.

My approach to the Bible is fairly well stated in my previous posts (#14 & #15). And, if I’m
off target here, please show me where I’ve gone wrong. . Indeed, I can be taught and am
“all ears.”

Frank

 

[unworthysinner]

fcfahs:

To be sure, I’m
not professing the Protestant’s theory of “sola scriptura,” for I know the bible itself tells us
that the Apostles were witness to many other works of Jesus (and no doubt to many other
teachings of Jesus) that were not written down.

I’m just curious, where in so called “Sacred Tradition” are all these things Jesus did not mentioned in the Bible? The truth is the early church was never without Scripture. Jesus while he was on the earth responded to his harshest critics with the words “It is written”. The bereans in Acts are commended for searching Scripture, not tradition to judge whether the apostles spoke the truth or not. The Word of God has existed since eternity past, can the same be said of tradition? Most of all Scripture agrees with Scripture but tradition has contradicted itself(one that instantly comes to mind is pre-assumtion Mary shrines suddenly disappearing in 1950 when that dogma was pronounced. The Catholic church would like to pretend that this never happened, but I know of Catholics who lived at that time who remember this. In defense of “Sola Scriptura”, what else do we need other than the God-breathed Inspired Word of God that will never pass away?

 

[fcfahs]

unworthysinner:

I’m just curious, where in so called “Sacred Tradition” are all these things Jesus did not mentioned in the Bible? The truth is the early church was never without Scripture…

Good question, unworthysinner. You’ve touched on one of my biggest concerns.

Fact is, I asked Mathetes007 pretty much the same question in the 2nd & 3rd
paragraphs of post #26.

Please stay on this thread.

Frank

 

[Church_Militant]

unworthysinner:

Most of all Scripture agrees with Scripture but tradition has contradicted itself(one that instantly comes to mind is pre-assumtion Mary shrines suddenly disappearing in 1950 when that dogma was pronounced. The Catholic church would like to pretend that this never happened, but I know of Catholics who lived at that time who remember this. In defense of “Sola Scriptura”, what else do we need other than the God-breathed Inspired Word of God that will never pass away?

What the heck are you talking about? If you mean the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin you are full of hooey since we still believe in that and in fact the mission church from my parish is named for it.

Just because you say you know some lamer Catholics who you say said something does not prove anything. I have been around long enough and having been part of n-C churches for over 34 years and dealing with allegations all the time since my return I know of no such. Unless you can substantiate your remarks with historical proff from unbiased sources I will call said allegation baseless. I would very much appreciate it if you would get a grip on your anti-Catholic rhetoric, and refrain from allegations that you cannot support with real evidence. I.E that the Church has anything to hide.

 

[Mathetes007]

fcfahs:

Good question, unworthysinner. You’ve touched on one of my biggest concerns. Fact is, I asked Mathetes007 pretty much the same question in the 2nd & 3rd
paragraphs of post #26.

Sorry Frank, maybe I misunderstood your question to mean:

I would like to know exactlly which unwritten Sacred teachings of the first and prior centuries (teachings deemed requisit for understanding Scripture) made their way, devoid of adulteration and still unwritten, into the second and later centuries and ultimately into the “hands” of our contemporary Church theologians, such that only our Church theologians are qualified to interpret the already well translated, well prefaced, and well footnoted Bibles of today.

I thought I answered your question about Tradition carrying a divine truth (the table of contents of Scripture) in the first centuries of Christianity that is not contained in Scripture itself. Without the knowledge of what makes up Scripture, we cannot then use the method you describe of Scripture interpreting Scripture since the divine truth contained in the Sacred Library would be severed and incomplete and consequently its interpretation will be erroneous (i.e. Protestant vs Catholic OT canon). You asked for an example dating in the first centuries which I provided. You cannot brush off this example with the following statement:

Therefore, I’m sure that Tradition and reference to outside resources, such as non-inspired writings, played an important part in formulating the canon of Scripture, not to mention translating the original works. But that job is done! And we can move on from there, …

Now in a previous post I pointed out that:

If we consider these implications, the Scriptures appear to be teaching us that it is only through ordained ministers or prophets that are guided by the Spirit that can give us its inerrant interpretation. This does not mean that we cannot understand Scripture on our own. On the other hand, it does mean though that only through this process can we have 100% assurance of the true meaning intended by the Spirit that wrote the Scriptures.

In fact believers need to come to Scripture for understanding. It was written for us. Church scholars and theologians are not the only ones that can interpret Scripture. However, I also pointed out that the Scriptures allude to the way of getting an infallible interpretation. The Church teaches that this happens when the Holy Spirit works through the Church’s Magisterium (with certain conditions being met). All believers, regardless if layperson or theologian or minister must abide by that infallible interpretation.

Unworthy Sinner,

You are correct that the Church was never without God-breathed Scripture. It always had the OT from the beginning. However, the NT Scripture did not come into existence until many years after the Church was already preaching the infallible good news (the message of Christianity) to unbelievers. This teaching makes up Sacred Tradition. An example of this Tradition is the content of Scripture. This is a divine truth that does not exist and cannot be obtained from the Scriptures themselves. As you can see, there is divine truth outside of Scripture that will never pass away. Any commands and revelations from God regardless if they were written or spoken carry the same force. For God’s Word is living and abiding regardless if it is the written Word or the Gospel that was orally preached (1 Peter 1:22-25).

Your question also reveals a misunderstanding of Tradition. You seem to imply that Tradition consists of teachings of Jesus not found or implied in Scripture. Tradition is actually the teaching that was handed on from Jesus and the Apostles to the Church. Therefore, Scripture is part of Tradition (which means teaching). Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict as they spring from the same divine Source.

Not everything the Church teaches was taught explicitly by Christ when he was on earth. Recall that Jesus gave further wisdom and revelation to both Paul and John after His death. Peter received further revelation (through a vision) as well after Jesus’ death. Also recall that Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would bring further revelation and teaching to the Apostles (John 14:25-26). Consequently Tradition contains teachings of Jesus and His Apostles to the Chruch. Part of the teaching that was handed on was written down and other teachings such as what comprised Scripture was not written down.

I’m not clear on your comment about Marian Shrines. I’m having difficulty understanding your term “pre-assumtion.” “Pre-assumption” in religious terms would mean prior to being assumed not necessarily “non-assumption” which would refer to not assumed.

 

[Exporter]

I do not knowingly interpret the Bible.

I do read the interpretations of the Church.

We laity are not in a position by training or sanctity

to interpret the Bible. We are told to rely on the Church for interpretations. That’s what I do.

 

[unworthysinner]

Church Militant:

What the heck are you talking about? If you mean the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin you are full of hooey since we still believe in that and in fact the mission church from my parish is named for it.

Just because you say you know some lamer Catholics who you say said something does not prove anything. I have been around long enough and having been part of n-C churches for over 34 years and dealing with allegations all the time since my return I know of no such. Unless you can substantiate your remarks with historical proff from unbiased sources I will call said allegation baseless. I would very much appreciate it if you would get a grip on your anti-Catholic rhetoric, and refrain from allegations that you cannot support with real evidence. I.E that the Church has anything to hide.

I quote the Catholic pope himself…
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine."

 

[Church_Militant]

unworthysinner:

I quote the Catholic pope himself…
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine."

**
See anything that even mentions your fallacious sources?**

See here: newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady’s death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis.

According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the “Liber Pontificalis” (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August.

con’t